On Point: H. Hearsay, Ch. 908

State v. Devon A. Sheriff, 2009AP3095-CR, District 1, 11/16/10 

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Sheriff: Jeffrey W. Jensen; Sheriff BiC; State Resp.

Sheriff, convicted at jury trial of participating in drug sale, unsuccessfully appeals trial judge’s refusal to admit into evidence codefendant’s statements.

¶12      We conclude that the statements that Sheriff sought to admit were properly excluded because they were irrelevant.

decision below: 2010 WI App 42; for Beauchamp: Martin E. Kohler, Craig S. Powell

Issues (from Table of Pending Cases):

Does the confrontation clause bar admission of testimonial dying declarations against a defendant in light of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 and State v. Manuel, 2005 WI 75, 281 Wis. 2d 554, 697 N.W.2d 811?

Does a defendant’s right to due process of law restrict the substantive use of prior inconsistent statements?

State v. Corey Kleser, 2010 WI 88, affirming in part, reversing in part, 2009 WI App 43; for Kleser: Devon M. Lee, SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Reverse Waiver, §§ 938.183(1), 970.032(1) & (2) – Generally

¶69 Nothing in § 970.032(2) places a limitation on the evidence at a reverse waiver hearing so long as the evidence is admissible under the rules of evidence and is relevant to one or more of the three elements set out in the subsection.

court of appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication); for Jackson: Byron C. Lichstein; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Hearsay, Child Sexual Assault, Residual Exception
Statements by youthful sex assault complainants admissible under residual hearsay exception, court rejecting idea that it’s thereby allowing exception to swallow general rule against hearsay admissibility; confrontation objection forfeited).

Counsel – Strategic Basis for Failing to Adduce Alibi Witness
Counsel’s failure to have potential alibi witnesses testify was reasonable strategy,

court of appeals decision, affirmed, 2011 WI 27; for Beauchamp: Martin E. Kohler, Craig S. Powell; case activity

Dying Declaration, § 908.045(3)

¶8        …  dying declaration, codified in Wisconsin Stat. Rule 908.045(3): “A statement made by a declarant while believing that the declarant’s death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be the declarant’s impending death.” Under established law,

court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication)

Statement against Interest, Exculpating Defendant
Against-interest statement exculpating defendant admissible. Declarant unavailable, given reasonable but unsuccessful efforts to subpoena. Contrary to trial court, statement not ambiguous but was direct admission of crime and corroborated by having been made to different people on different occasions.

State v. Thomas S. Mayo, 2007 WI 78, affirming unpublished opinion
For Mayo: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School

Issue/Holding:

¶54      We agree with the State’s position that Price’s out-of-court statements were properly admitted under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. In talking to Officer Langendorf, Price was describing a startling event——his encounter with Mayo, during which he claimed that he was robbed and battered.

State v. Patrick Jackson, 2007 WI App 145, PFR filed 6/6/07
For Jackson: Marcella De Peters

Issue/Holding:

¶20 Although finding that Natisha Watkins was unavailable as a witness because it permitted her to assert her Fifth Amendment right, the trial court excluded what Natisha Watkins told Papka because it determined that her statement that Carlos Williams and not Jackson handled the gun was not against her penal interest.

State v. Jeffrey Lorenzo Searcy, 2006 WI App 8
For Searcy: Joseph L. Sommers

Issue/Holding:

¶48 Here, Adams’ statements were properly admitted under the excited utterance hearsay exception. Adams spontaneously made the statements, without police prompting, under the stress of watching her cousin being taken into custody at gunpoint. It was only one to two minutes after Searcy’s arrest that Adams emerged from the crowd that had gathered to witness the arrest and yelled,

State v. Roberto Vargas Rodriguez, 2006 WI App 163, PFR filed 8/28/06
For Rodriguez: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Where the defendant’s brother testified that the non-testifying complainant had recanted, the prosecution could impeach the brother with the possibility that the complainant was motivated by fear due to the brother’s gang affiliation, ¶31: “A witness’s motive (whether testifying ‘live’ or by admission of his or her out-of-court assertions) is never collateral,